This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Bail out of processing stop if hook-stop resumes target / changes context
- From: Yao Qi <qiyaoltc at gmail dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:22:37 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Bail out of processing stop if hook-stop resumes target / changes context
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1439836415-22008-1-git-send-email-palves at redhat dot com>
Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
Hi Pedro,
> - if (stop_command)
> - catch_errors (hook_stop_stub, stop_command,
> - "Error while running hook_stop:\n", RETURN_MASK_ALL);
> + if (stop_command != NULL)
> + {
> + struct stop_context *saved_context = save_stop_context ();
> + struct cleanup *old_chain
> + = make_cleanup (release_stop_context_cleanup, saved_context);
> +
> + catch_errors (hook_stop_stub, stop_command,
> + "Error while running hook_stop:\n", RETURN_MASK_ALL);
> +
> + /* If the stop hook resumes the target, then there's no point in
> + trying to notify about the previous stop; its context is
> + gone. Likewise if the command switches thread or inferior --
> + the observers would print a stop for the wrong
> + thread/inferior. */
> + if (stop_context_changed (saved_context))
> + {
> + do_cleanups (old_chain);
> + return 1;
> + }
> + do_cleanups (old_chain);
> + }
I am wondering why don't we let interpreter in async to execute
stop_command, and we simply return here. In this way, we don't have to
know whether stop_command resumes the target or switches the thread.
Once there is no event from event loop, the target really stops and
hook-stop is already executed.
--
Yao (éå)